EDINBURGH REVIEW, APRIL 1806. No. XV. ART. I. War in Difguife, or the Frauds of the Neutral Flags: Second Edition. 8vo. pp. 252. London, 1806. THIS His is a pamphlet of great merit, upon a subject of very general importance. It is written with uncommon talent and confiderable eloquence; and is diftinguished by that full and systematic argument, and alfo perhaps by that tone of confidence, anxiety, and exaggeration, which we expect to meet in the pleadings of a profeffional advocate. Though we have been very much struck with fome of the statements and reafonings of the ingenious author, we are not prepared to adopt the whole of his conclufions; and as the fubject is immediately interefting to a greater variety of perfons than ufually concern themselves with international dif cuffions, we fliall firft endeavour to give a clear abftract of the views and doctrines fet forth in this publication, and then fubjoin fuch obfervations as have occurred to us upon the great question to which it relates. The queftion, our readers are probably aware, relates mainly to the right claimed by neutral nations to traffic with the colonies of our enemies in time of war. By the general policy of Europe, the trade of colonies has usually been monopolized by the mother country; and, in time of peace, no other nation has been permitted either to export their produce, or to furnish them with fupplies. In the prefent, and in former wars, however, the colonial trade of France has been in a great degree thrown open to neutrals; and it is the object of this author to point out to his countrymen the nature and extent of the injury which has refulted to our caufe from their interference, and the juftice and expe diency of endeavouring to put a stop to it. He fets out with a fhort hiftorical fummary of the origin and progrefs of this evil, and of the means hitherto employed to refift it. It was in the war 1756, he informs us, that France was firft VOL. VIII. NO. 15. A driven, driven, by the preffure of maritime hoftility, to relax her colonial monopoly, and to invite neutral nations to refort to her Weft Indian ports, for the purpose both of furnishing supplies to the colonies, and of carrying their produce, apparently as neutral property, to market. The prize courts of this country, however, had at that time no difficulty in determining this trade to be illegal, and condemning the veffels engaged in it, however clearly the property might appear to be neutral. The principle of these decifions, which has fince been generally known by the name of the rule of the war 1756,' was fubftantially this, that a neutral has no right to deliver a belligerent from the preffure of his enemies hoftilities, by trading with his colonies in time of war in a way that was prohibited in time of peace.' This rule was afferted and fubmitted to during the whole period of that war, which only terminated in 1763. Previously to the acceffion of France to the American war, the had in fome measure relaxed her monopoly, and admitted neutrals in time of peace to trade to a certain extent with her colonies: in that war alfo, her maritime inferiority was by no means fo decided as to disable her from protecting her trade; and though neutrals did then undoubtedly engage in the colonial trade to a much greater extent than they would have been permitted to do in time of peace, it was not thought adviseable, in the circumftances that have been mentioned, and in the peculiar political fituation of the country, to affert to its full effect the rule of the war 1756, by which the trade might have been difallowed. The author affures us, however, that this rule was in no inftance abandoned or reverfed, though it was not thought proper to apply it, in a cafe of peculiar difficulty both legal and political. As foon as peace was concluded, the colonial monopoly of France was refumed in its utmost rigour, and neutrals were again entirely excluded from a trade which had been entrusted in a great measure to their hands. Upon the breaking out of the war 1793, the fame fyftem of evafion was refumed, and neutrals openly invited to trade in the ports of the hoftile colonies. This country immediately reverted to the rule of the war 1756; and, in the end of that year (November 1793), iffued inftructions to seize all veffels bringing goods from the hoftile colonies, or carrying fupplies to them. This refolution, however, gave occafion to warm remonftrances on the part of America, and, in January 1794, the inftructions were fo far modified and relaxed, as only to fubject to feizure. veffels coming directly from any port of the colonies to Europe.' Matters continued upon this footing till 1798, when a farther indulgence was given to the neutral trade, by permitting the produce of the hoftile colonies to be carried to the mother country of the neutral trader, whether in Europe or in America, and and alfo to be brought by them into the ports of this country. This regulation remained in force down to the treaty of Amiens; and immediately upon that pacification, the government of France returned to the principle of ftrict monopoly, and fhut the ports of its colonies to all veffels but its own. Ön the commencement of the prefent war, the accustomed movements took place; the trade. of the colonies was once more refigned by the enemy into the hands of the neutrals; and our government issued an instruction fubjecting to feizure all veffels carrying on trade between the said colonies and any country but the mother country of the neutral trader. This is the laft public inftruction which has been iffued by government for the regulation of our cruifers and fhips of war; and it is to the confequences of its fubfiftence, and the relaxation of the rule 1756, that the author of the work before us has directed the attention of his readers. In point of historical statement, it only remains to add, that in the treaty negotiated with America through Mr Jay, it was originally ftipulated that the French colonial produce imported into that country fhould not be reexported to Europe during the war: but the treaty was ratified by the American government with the fpecial exception of that article, and our administration thought proper to acquiefce in its rejection. The author now proceeds to point out the confequences of this indulgence to the neutral traders, and the extent of the mifchiefs which we have brought upon ourselves, by this practical relaxation of the rule of the war 1756. The hoftile proprietor of the colonial produce will naturally be anxious to tranfmit it to his own country, or to his accustomed markets in Europe; and this he is enabled to do, our author affures us, in confequence of the fubfifting regulations, in one of two ways. He embarks it in neutral bottoms in the ports of the colony, and invefts it in the name of a neutral proprietor. If the veffel belong to an European neutral, fhe fails with a clearance for a port in her mother country, and is thus fecured against our captors during the whole homeward voyage. When the arrives on the European coaft, fhe flips into the mother country of the belligerent, or into any other port to which she had been configned by the hoftile owner. If the neutral be American, this mode of proceeding can scarcely ever be adopted; and the practice, in fuch cafes, is to proceed, in the first inftance, to a port in America, and thence to export the cargo in the fame or a different bottom to the European market, pointed out by the colonial proprietor: Thefe double voyages, undertaken for the exprefs purpofe of avoiding the feizure to which the veffels would have been liable, if they had run directly from the colonies to the European mar A 2 ket, our author reprobates as most fraudulent and unjustifiable evafions of the belligerent rights referved to us by our prefent indulgent regulations; and he fpends a great deal of time in detailing the contrivances by which the device has been fucceffively improved, fo as to be now almoft fecure from detection. The great question on all such seizures is, whether the continuity of the voyage, from the colony to the European market, has really been broken by an effective and bona fide delivery in an American port, and a fubfequent shipment on account of an American owner for Europe; or whether it be evident, from all the circumftances, that the voyage to America was merely a colour and pretext, and that the original deftination of the cargo was for the European market to which it is ultimately configned? The ingenuity of the neutralizing agents has enabled them to keep pace with the increafing fagacity or fufpicion of the courts of prize; and fpeedily taught them to provide, beforehand, all thofe facts and documents which the moft recent decifions had declared to be neceffary for their fafety. At first, an entire new clearance and fet of papers, taken on board in the American port, was thought to be fufficient; but afterwards, when it was made manifeft that the veffel merely touched there for the purpose of procuring thefe documents, and inftantly pursued her voyage to Europe, it was found neceffary to cover the evafion by a greater complication of circumftances. Evidence was therefore fucceffively required, of the goods having been actually landed, or of the property having been transferred by an actual fale in Ameri ca;of the infurance being made feparately upon the voyages. from the colony to America, and from that country to Europe, as upon two entire and independent voyages ;—and, finally, of the actual payment of the importation duties in the ports of the United States. Certain illufory certificates of this laft circumftance having been rejected, in our courts of prize, in fome recent inftances, formed the fole occafion, our author affures us, of all the clamour which has been echoed from France and America upon the fubject of our tyranny over neutrals. The confequence of thefe devices has been, that the colonies retained by our enemies have gone on flourishing, in a commercial point of view, even more rapidly than in time of peace; while their produce has been tranfported to the moft advantageous market, under cover of the neutral flag, with a degree of cheapnefs and fecurity fuperior to what we can command for our own by means of the unqueftioned fupremacy of our maritime power. The fact is, our author affures us, that not a fingle merchant fhip now traverfes the Atlantic under enemies' colours; nay, he adds, that, with the exception of a very infignificant coafting |